11.13.12

Richard Stallman has already criticised Apple for it in his political blog

Summary: Apple denies third party’s distribution of an app with politically divisive content

As part of my political leanings, outside of Techrights I actively oppose the use of drones to assassinate individuals imprecisely, usually killing more innocent civilians than CIA targets. Watch what Apple is doing to those who entertain the subject:

Drone wars continue because the U.S. public is unaware what is being done in our name with our money. We are interested in knowing where our government is using drones and has killed people, not in celebrating that killing.

The people in Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere living under the drones can’t ignore what’s being done to them. Neither should we, as it’s done with our money and in our names.

A recent study by Stanford and NYU found that drones traumatize innocent populations, who have no way of knowing how to protect themselves from drone strikes. Further, only 2% of victims of these strikes are high-level targets. The drones kill civilian men, women, and children, are being used to target rescuers, schools and funerals, and create significant anti-U.S. hostility — exactly as the Pakistani and Afghan governments have said they do.

Despite the completely inoffensive nature of the application, Apple has repeatedly refused to allow an app tracking U.S. drone strikes by claiming that the content is “objectionable and crude.”

In reality, it is not the app that is “objectionable and crude,” instead it is the program itself which is both objectionable and crude. It makes it even worse that the United States government refuses to justify while continuing to pour money into the field, signaling a lengthy future for the technology.

It is even more concerning that Apple would be blocking an app providing information on drone strikes abroad while drones are already being used in the United States with massive expansion looming on the horizon.

There are other apps about drones [1, 2, 3] which get a free pass, for instance:

Dronestagram is the latest project from renowned “new aesthetic” pioneer James Bridle, an Instagram feed which posts satellite images corresponding to US drone strikes in the Middle-East and Asia. Much like Josh Begley’s Drones+, the Apple-banned smartphone app which sends alerts whenever drone strikes are reported, Bridle says Dronestagram is a way of “making these locations just a little bit more visible, a little closer. A little more real.”

In the eyes of Apple, drones are okay, provided they are not criticised. Apple is making a political stance even by denying politicised apps. This is censorship — something which Free software strives to tackle. █

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

A Single Comment

One and only one license guarantees software freedom: the GPL! The only freedom that the GPL prohibits is to proprietize the software and take the freedom out of it. Furthermore, the GPL is the bedrock reason why Linux is innovating so much faster than the other OS’s. GPL’d code is out there for anyone to refine and improve, and the improvements fold back into the software. Linux’ constant intellectual reinvestment is what makes Apple and MS fear it so; they lag behind, and they will fall farther behind as the public wakes up.

The lunacy of the EPO with its patent maximalism will likely go unchecked (and uncorrected) if Battistelli gets his way and turns the EPO into another SIPO (Croatian in the human rights sense and Chinese in the quality sense)

Another long installment in a multi-part series about UPC at times of post-truth Battistelli-led EPO, which pays the media to repeat the lies and pretend that the UPC is inevitable so as to compel politicians to welcome it regardless of desirability and practicability

Implementing yet more of his terrible ideas and so-called 'reforms', Battistelli seems to be racing to the bottom of everything (patent quality, staff experience, labour rights, working conditions, access to justice etc.)

"Good for trolls" is a good way to sum up the Unitary Patent, which would give litigators plenty of business (defendants and plaintiffs, plus commissions on high claims of damages) if it ever became a reality

Microsoft's continued fascination with and participation in the effort to undermine Alice so as to make software patents, which the company uses to blackmail GNU/Linux vendors, widely acceptable and applicable again